"In such a dynamic, accuracy may not be a priority."
From Cybart's "Another Questionable Bloomberg Report on iPhone Demand, What’s Going On With Bloomberg?" ($) posted Wednesday on Above Avalon:
It’s shocking how similar this Bloomberg report is to one that the publication pushed out 10 months ago. Both articles had Debby Wu and Takashi Mochizuki in the byline. In each case, Bloomberg pushed the claim that iPhone demand was faltering, and then tried its best to support the claim with random numbers and estimates...
One item that has been difficult to miss is Bloomberg making sure to point out in its articles how they are apparently responsible for a company’s stock price change. Stories from Mark Gurman are notorious for including such language. Here’s an example from a random Apple-related article in July:
“Apple shares fell 2.1% to $147.07 after Bloomberg reported on the [hiring] slowdown, marking the biggest one-day decline in almost three weeks.”
It’s not that other publications ignore price stock changes. However, the way Bloomberg tries to imply that they are single-handedly impacting stock prices rubs me the wrong way. The following language was included in Bloomberg’s slowing iPhone demand story from yesterday as if to say “we did that”:
Is Bloomberg editorial striving to impact stock prices so that they can say they are all about breaking market-moving news? It’s not hard to see how Bloomberg may use that as a way of selling subscriptions to its pricey market data service. In such a dynamic, accuracy may not be a priority.
My take: There. Someone has said it.